UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


PARALLEL  THEMES  AND  THEIR 

TREATMENT  IN  SCHILLER 

AND  SHAFTESBURY 


BY 


ALLAN  L.  CARTER 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED    TO   THE   FACULTY   OF    THE    GRADUATE    SCHOOL    IN 

PARTIAL   FULFILMENT   OF  THE   REQUIREMENTS   FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 
1919 


UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


PARALLEL  THEMES  AND  THEIR 

TREATMENT  IN  SCHILLER 

AND  SHAFTESBURY 


BY 

ALLAN  L.  CARTER 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED    TO    THE   FACULTY   OF    THE    GRADUATE    SCHOOL    IN 

PARTIAL   FULFILMENT   OF   THE    REQUIREMENTS   FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 
1919 


i    ' . 


PRESS  OF 

STEINMAN  &  FOLTZ 

Lancaster,  Pa. 


TO  MY  MOTHER 

WHOSE  DELIGHTFUL  COMPANIONSHIP  AND 
VALUABLE  COUNSEL  MEAN  A  VERY 
GREAT  DEAL  TO  ME  V 


420204 


FOREWORD 

This  study  is  the  development  of  an  investigation  undertaken 
at  the  instance  of  Doctor  Clement  Vollmer  for  his  seminary 
in  "The  Relations  of  Eighteenth  Century  Thought  to  Litera- 
ture." I  am  indebted  to  Doctor  Vollmer  not  only  for  suggest- 
ing the  subject,  but  also  for  much  incisive  comment  in  the  field 
and  for  many  helpful  suggestions  about  my  work.  My  thanks 
are  also  due  Doctor  Daniel  Bussier  Shumway  for  helpful  guid- 
ance and  his  unfailing  interest  during  all  stages  of  my  study. 
I  am  greatly  obliged  to  the  members  of  the  Germanic  Associa- 
tion whose  lively  discussion  of  my  paper  proved  as  helpful  as 
it  was  delightful.  I  wish  also  to  thank  Doctor  Josiah  H.  Penni- 
man  for  my  use  of  his  fine  editions  of  Shaftesbury's  "Char- 
acteristics" and  of  related  critical  material. 

A.  L.  C. 


PARALLEL  THEMES  AND  THEIR  TREATMENT 
IN  SCHILLER  AND  SHAFTESBURY 

INTRODUCTION 

My  aim  in  this  study  is  chiefly  expositional ;  I  seek  to  present 
the  essential  similarities  in  the  central  themes  of  Schiller  and 
of  Shaftesbury  and  to  describe  the  manner  in  which  these  themes 
are  treated,  hence  no  attempt  is  made  to  take  up  the  writings 
chronologically,  or  to  determine  the  validity  of  any  theme  for 
the  complete  structure  of  either  writer.  It  is  not  my  purpose 
to  attempt  to  prove  that  Schiller  borrowed,  or  did  not  borrow, 
his  doctrines  from  Shaftesbury;  moreover,  I  believe  that  one's 
attitude  on  such  questions,  where  the  evidence  is  so  obviously 
conjectural  and  slight,  is  at  most  matter  for  personal  preference, 
certainly  it  does  not  permit  of  scientific  establishment. 

Real  justification  for  a  work  of  this  kind  is  to  be  sought  less 
in  the  challenging  statements1  about  the  historical  relations  of 
Schiller  and  Shaftesbury,  although  these  necessarily  have  their 
place,  than  in  the  need  for  a  succinct  account  of  their  simi- 
larities in  belief  and  of  the  intellectual  and  emotional  processes 
by  which  these  beliefs  are  bodied  out. 

To  anyone  attempting  to  write  about  the  philosophical  views 
of  Schiller  there  are  at  once  presented  numerous  difficulties ; 
these  exist  both  in  the  very  inconsequential  manner  in  which 
the  material  is  brought  to  paper  as  well  as  in  the  more  funda- 
mental matter  of  terminology.2     It  is  open  to  question  whether 


1  At  the  present  there  exists  the  most  oppositeness  in  view  about  the  rela- 
tions of  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury:  Schiller  has  been  made  to  appear  in  all 
degrees  of  intellectual  kinship  with  Shaftesbury,  varying  from  a  direct  dis- 
ciple to  an  absolute  antithesis.  In  reviewing  the  statements  made  apropos 
of  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  up  to  the  present,  one  cannot  but  be  convinced 
that  a  good  deal  of  the  critical  work  which  has  been  offered  is  so  general 
that  it  can  have  no  specific  reference,  and  that  the  broad  assumptions  of 
bond  between  the  two  authors  are  as  applicable  to  the  relations  of  other 
writers  who  have  been  interested  in  similar  themes. 

2  The  following  works  deal  with  the  problems  presented  in  Schiller's  ter- 
mini: Prolegomena  zu  einem  Lexikon  der  aesthetisch-ethischen  Terminologie 
Friedrich  Schillers,  Julia  Wernly,  Leipzig,  1909.  Schillers  aesthetisch- 
sittliche  Weltanschauung,  Dr.  Paul  Geyer,  Berlin,  1896. 


8  Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 

Schiller  is  saying  anything  new  in  these  somewhat  remarkable 
terms,  and  what  Carlyle  remarks  rather  facetiously  on  the 
Kantian  philosophy  in  general  may  be  here  not  without  appli- 
cation to  Schiller.3  Schiller  is  not  fundamentally  a  philosopher, 
and  although  he  establishes  an  exceedingly  close  articulation 
in  much  of  his  writing  between  his  freer  poetical  bent  and  his 
formal  interests  in  philosophy,  yet  he  never  achieves  the  con- 
sciously crisp  sequence  and  the  orderliness  of  thought  which  are 
so  desirable  in  philosophical  studies,  and  into  some  of  his  articles 
he  brings  a  baffling  poetic  fancifulness  of  term  which  leaves  the 
real  thought  content  vague.  Furthermore,  there  is  in  no  strict 
sense  of  the  term  a  regular  philosophical  system  in  Schiller, 
and  while  he  does  not  share  Shaftesbury's  attitude  toward  one,4 
his  poetic  drift  always  bears  him  outside  any  purposive  cata- 
loguing of  ideas,  and  consequently  what  is  subsidiary  in  one 
essay  often  assumes  prime  importance  in  another  work. 

This  shifting  of  emphasis  presents  a  peculiar  problem  in 
Schiller;  and  it  has  undoubtedly  contributed  much  to  the  anti- 
podal views  which  obtain  of  his  relations  to  Kant.  To  the 
student  of  Schiller's  incomposite  philosophical  studies,  then, 
the  essential  difficulty  is  to  know  where  to  take  him,  what 
essay  or  group  of  letters  to  accept  as  the  true  norm  of  his  think- 
ing, and  what  opinion  to  relegate  into  the  background  as  beside 
the  main  drift  of  his  thought,  or  as  irrelevant  and  even  as  anti- 
thetical to  it.  Manifestly,  there  is  much  to  the  credit  of  the 
attitude  which  seeks  to  obtain  a  broad  reading  of  his  philos- 

3  Life  of  Friedrich  Schiller,  Thomas  Carlyle,  London,  1825  (reprint  1875), 
Part  Three,  p.  98.  "To  an  exoteric  reader  the  philosophy  of  Kant  almost 
appears  to  invert  the  common  maxim;  its  end  and  aim  seem  not  to  be  'to 
make  abstruse  things  simple,'  but  to  make  simple  things  abstruse.  Often  a 
proposition  of  inscrutable  and  dread  aspect  when  resolutely  grappled  with 
and  torn  from  its  shady  den,  and  its  bristling  entrenchments  of  uncouth 
terminology,  and  dragged  forth  into  the  light  of  day,  to  be  seen  of  the  natural 
eye,  and  tried  by  merely  human  understanding,  proves  to  be  a  very  harmless 
truth,  familiar  to  us  from  old,  sometimes  so  familiar  as  to  be  a  truism." 

4  Characteristics,  fifth  edition,  I:  290.  "But  for  the  philosopher  who  pre- 
tends to  be  wholly  taken  up  in  considering  the  higher  faculties,  and  exam- 
ining the  powers  and  principles  of  his  understanding:  if  in  reality  his  phil- 
osophy be  sovereign  to  the  matter  professed;  if  it  go  beside  the  mark,  and 
reaches  nothing  we  can  truly  call  our  interest  or  concern;  it  must  be  somewhat 
worse  than  mere  ignorance  or  idiotism.  The  most  ingenious  way  of  becoming 
foolish  is  by  a  system." 


Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  9 

ophy,5  if  actually  to  the  exclusion  of  certain  of  the  minutiae, 
and  it  has  important  advantages  on  the  side  of  conservatism. 
On  the  whole,  it  is  probably  true  that  few  poets  have  striven 
more  earnestly  than  Schiller  to  make  their  intellectual  judg- 
ments the  children  of  uncontaminated  reason,  for  he  lived  at 
a  time  when  reason  not  only  reigned  supreme  as  the  trusted 
arbiter  in  all  disputes,  but  was  confidently  looked  to  as  the 
interpreter  of  all  the  hidden  things  of  life.  But  take  Schiller 
where  you  will,  there  is  always  the  potential  emotional  element 
lurking  in  the  background,  ready  at  a  moment's  notice  to  spring 
forward  and  save  a  too  finely  spun  intellectual  fabric  by  sub- 
stituting a  cloth  of  commoner  pattern. 

For  the  sake  of  completeness  and  truth  it  is  necessary  to  add 
that  Schiller  is  frequently  the  mere  rhetorician  and,  occasionally, 
perilously  close  to  the  pedant,  his  curious  fondness  for  the  intel- 
lectual jugglery  of  the  paradox  being,  perhaps,  his  worst  failing. 

Again,  there  is  an  added  difficulty  in  the  distance  in  time 
from  the  present.  Even  under  favorable  circumstances  it  is 
hard  to  reconstruct  the  intellectual  trend  of  former  periods 
sufficiently  well  to  furnish  their  accurate  and  well  regulated 
picture  in  entirety.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  eighteenth 
century  which,  intellectually,  at  least,  seems  so  incompatible 
with  the  present.  This  difficulty  of  remoteness  in  time  is 
equally  applicable  to  Shaftesbury,  whose  work  even  beyond 
its  stylistic  difficulties  of  archaism  and  classicism  presents 
peculiar  problems.  In  England,  on  the  whole,  Shaftesbury  has 
not  been  taken  very  seriously,  being  frequently  dismissed  as  a 
charlatan,  or  what  is  worse,  "an  intellectual  coxcomb";  al- 
though unquestionably  of  influence,  he  has  never  been  read  in 
England  with  the  indulgence  that  he  has  received  from  the 
Germans.6    Shaftesbury,  unlike  Schiller,  does  not  invent  terms 

6 This  Professor  E.  C.  Wilm  has  striven  to  do  in  his  valuable  book,  "The 
Philosophy  of  Schiller  in  its  Historical  Relations,"  Boston,  1912. 

6  It  is  illuminating  and  interesting  in  this  connection  to  make  a  comparison 
of  the  attitude  toward  Shaftesbury  as  represented  in  the  English  works  of 
Saintsbury,  Leslie  Stephen,  and  Bosanquet  with  the  discussion  on  Shaftes- 
bury in  Hettner  which  may  be  taken  as  normative  for  the  Germans.  Bosan- 
quet, for  instance,  says:  "Shaftesbury  is  far  from  being  a  great  philosopher, 
and  does  little  more  than  reproduce  in  terms  of  the  individual's  sensibility 
the  current  ideas  of  the  age";  and  Hettner:  "We  have  every  reason  to  return 
to  his  writings,  for  in  them  we  may  learn  not  only  the  truth,  but  also  the 
beauty  of  speculative  thinking." 


io  Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 

as  he  goes  along,  nor  does  he  ever  engage,  wilfully  at  least,  in 
metaphysical  obscurity;  the  real  difficulty  in  arriving  at  a  suit- 
able interpretation  of  his  work  lies  in  the  spirit  with  which 
he  treats  his  subject,  whether  it  be  his  jest  or  his  earnest. 

Various  degrees  of  influence  of  Shaftesbury  upon  the  writings 
of  Schiller  have  been  assumed  in  all  the  more  thoroughgoing 
investigations  of  Schiller's  philosophical  thought.     In  general 
there  have  been  two  ways  of  looking  at  the  question,  both  of 
which  have  in  turn  been  the  result  of  the  decision  regarding 
Schiller's  relations  to  Kant.7     The  first  and  older  view  is  held 
by  those  who  believe  that  Schiller  became  essentially  Kantian 
following  his  intensive  study  of  Kant's  philosophy  during  which 
period  Schiller  was  supposed  to  go  over  to  the  Kantian  prin- 
ciples definitively.     These  writers,  then,  place  whatever  influ- 
ence is  traceable  to  Shaftesbury  in  the  earliest  philosophical 
writings  of  Schiller,  and  they  assume  a  repudiation  of  Shaftes- 
bury when  Schiller  takes  up  the  study  of  Kant.     The  later 
view  which  has  for  its  sponsor  no  less  than  the   able   writer 
Windelband  has  been  elaborated  by  Professor  Oskar  F.  Wal- 
zel;8  it  has  not,  however,  remained  unchallenged.9    This  view 
undertakes  to  derive  the  closeness  of  opinion  between  Shaftes- 
bury and  Schiller  from  Schiller's  contact  with  Herder10  and 
Wieland,11  both  of  whom  have  been  known  as  ardent  champions 
of  Shaftesbury  in  Germany.     Such  a  conception  tends  to  dis- 
regard  any   possibility   of   influence   from   Shaftesbury   which 
may  have  resulted  through  Schiller's  early  study  of  Fergusson, 
and   Professor  Walzel   in   his  discussion  seems   to  distinguish 

7  As  is  well  known,  the  relations  of  Schiller  to  Kant  have  been  the  sub- 
ject of  the  most  opposite  views.  That  Schiller's  work  is  not  only  the  logical 
complement,  but  that  it  represents  a  further  development  of  the  Kantian 
ethics  is  the  opinion  advanced  in  a  fairly  recent  book  on  the  subject  by  Leon- 
ard Nelson:  Die  kritische  Ethik  bei  Kant,  Schiller  und  Fries,  Goettingen, 
19 14.  See,  also,  Professor  Anton  Applemann's:  Der  Unterschied  in  der 
Auffassung  der  Ethik  bei  Kant  und  Schiller.     New  York,  1917. 

8  See  especially  his  introduction  to  the  eleventh  volume  of  the  Saekular 
Cotta  edition  of  Schiller's  works,  Stuttgart,  1904. 

9  Schiller  als  Denker,  B.  K.  Engel,  p.  7;  15. 

10  Der  Einfluss  Shaftesburys  auf  Herder,  Stanford  University  Disserta- 
tion.    Irvin  C.  Hatch. 

11  Wieland  and  Shaftesbury,  Charles  Elson,  Columbia  University  Press, 
1913.  Shaftesburys  Einfluss  auf  Ch.  M.  Wieland,  Herbert  Grudzinski, 
Stuttgart,  19  ft. 


Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  1 1 

between  Shaftesbury's  indirect  influence  through  Fergusson  in 
the  Garve  translation  and  Shaftesbury's  more  direct  influence 
through  Herder  and  Wieland  which  came  later,  what  this  dis- 
tinction is,  however,  remains  unsaid.  Such  an  interpretation 
very  naturally  finds  its  culmination  in  Schiller's  elaboration 
of  the  "beautiful  soul"  as  brought  out  in  his  essay  on  "Grace 
and  Dignity."  This  conception,  therefore,  is  taken  as  evi- 
dence of  the  denial  of  Kant  and  the  enthronement  of  Shaftes- 
bury in  a  point  which  contains  the  crux  of  the  whole  question. 
Those  who  hold  to  the  opinion  that  Schiller  is  definitely  Kantian 
quite  conceivably  are  less  apt  to  bring  forward  the  essay  on 
"Grace  and  Dignity"  and  accord  it  the  position  of  the  keystone 
in  Schiller's  thought,  as  many  writers  incline  to  do,  but  they 
insist  rather  upon  the  importance  of  such  later  work  as  "On 
the  Service  to  Morals  of  Aesthetic  Habits,"  in  which  it  is  not 
impossible  to  see  an  expansion  of  the  Kantian  doctrine  and  a 
limitation  of  Shaftesbury's  theme.  As  matter  of  fact,  however, 
all  these  views  may  be  well  substantiated  from  the  evidence 
assembled  from  Schiller's  essays,  although  too  frequently  one 
of  the  other  of  these  opinions  has  been  supported  merely  through 
exclusion  of  part  of  the  work.  In  fine,  the  assumptions  on 
Schiller's  kinship,  or  on  his  endebtedness,  as  some  would  have 
it,  to  Shaftesbury  up  to  this  time  amount  to  this:  (i)  that 
Schiller  borrowed  the  idea  of  practising  virtue  out  of  pure  in- 
clination from  Shaftesbury;  (2)  that  the  conception  of  the 
"beautiful  soul"  is  a  sort  of  rehabilitation  of  Shaftesbury's 
"virtuoso";  (3)  that  the  principle  of  the  advancement  of  moral 
ends  through  aesthetic  means  is  the  same  in  both  authors; 
(4)  that  Schiller  develops  his  early  pantheism  in  the  Shaftes- 
burian  vein;  (5)  that  Schiller's  notion  of  world  harmony  is  as 
referable  to  Shaftesbury  as  to  Leibnitz. 

Hence  it  follows,  if  the  assumptions  of  those  who  see  essential 
closeness  in  thought  between  Shaftesbury  and  Schiller  are  taken 
at  their  full  significance,  that  Shaftesbury's  work  is  entirely 
prelusive  to  Schiller,  Schiller  doing  little  more  than  to  comment 
upon  the  operation  of  the  earlier  ideas  and  adding  simply  what 
might  be  termed  the  natural  accretion  to  Shaftesbury's  system 
during  the  eighteenth  century. 

Obviously  the  difficulty  in  the  way  of  these  theories  about 
the  influence  of  Shaftesbury  upon  Schiller  is  the  fact  that  these 


12  Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 

writers  who  support  them  are  attempting  to  assume  specific 
reference  for  what  is  nothing  more  than  a  broad  principle,  or 
even  a  generalization.  It  cannot  be  said  that  any  of  the  ideas 
mentioned  are  in  a  strict  sense  the  exclusive  property  of  Shaftes- 
bury; in  fact,  they  are  such  as  might  easily  suggest  themselves 
to  any  mind  strongly  bent  by  an  interest  in  aesthetics  and 
ethics.12  Moreover,  the  external  evidence  that  Schiller  knew 
Shaftesbury  at  first  hand  is  insufficient;  and  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  Schiller  would  bridle  any  enthusiasm  for  Shaftes- 
bury in  his  letters  where  he  is  particularly  open  and  full. 

If  any  explanation  why  Schiller  wrote  as  he  did  in  the  Shaftes- 
burian  or  Platonic  vein  is  necessary,  it  is  much  more  likely  to 
be  found  in  a  study  of  his  personality  and  temperament13  than 
in  his  relations  to  earlier  thinkers. 


n  As  an  illuminating  fact  for  these  theories  of  influence  it  may  be  men- 
tioned that  in  Dr.  Rand's  recently  published  "Second  Characters"  of  Shaftes- 
bury, which  Schiller  could  not  possibly  have  known,  there  is,  perhaps,  the 
closest  approach  to  Schiller's  ideal  of  aesthetic  training  and  the  value  of 
such  training  for  the  individual  and  for  the  state. 

13  A  study  of  this  kind  for  Shaftesbury  has  already  been  made  by  M.  F. 
Libby :  Influence  of  the  Idea  of  Aesthetic  Proportion  on  the  Ethics  of  Shaftes- 
bury. American  Journal  of  Psychology,  XII.  More  technical  still  is  the 
work  of  Georg  Kilian:  Psychologisch-statistische  Untersuchungen  ueber  die 
Darstellung  der  Gemuetsbewegungen  in  Schillers  Lyrik,  19 10. 


PARALLEL   THEMES   AND    THEIR    TREATMENT    IN 
SCHILLER  AND  SHAFTESBURY 

General  Characterization  of  Their  Ethics 

Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  show  greatest  kinship  in  their  con- 
ception and  treatment  of  ethics.1  The  quintessence  of  both 
is  essentially  Greek  and  is  derivable  particularly  from  the  ideas 
of  Plato2  and  Socrates  which,  as  is  well  known,  remained  uncul- 
tivated throughout  the  middle  ages  only  to  blossom  forth  with 
freshness  at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Cambridge  Platonists.  In  seeking  to  characterize 
somewhat  generally,  by  way  of  introduction,  the  main  trend 
in  these  ethical  principles  it  is  enough  to  point  out  that  their 
main  bent  is  on  the  side  of  intuitive  goodness  and  the  perfec- 
tional  possibilities  of  mankind,  both  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 
being,  as  matter  of  fact,  broadly  classifiable  as  aesthetical  intu- 
itionalists  in  their  ethics.3  Both  systems  are  supported  further 
by  the  fact  that  the  perfectional  possibilities  of  mankind  are 
aided  in  their  development  by  the  addition  of  happiness.  Al- 
though both  these  ethical  systems  are  fundamentally  intuitive 
and  perfectional,  they  are  rarely  ever  purely  so.  Both  authors 
proceed  occasionally  from  and  toward  hedonistic  principles,  and 
they  substance  out  their  systems  by  them.  Jural  ethics,  whether 
the  result  of  religion  or  of  severely  rationalistic  precepts,  are 
distasteful  to  both  writers. 


1  Hettner's  remark  in  his  History  of  English  Literature,  p.  175,  that  the 
German  phrase  "Trachtet  zuerst  nach  dem  Schoenen,  und  das  Gute  wird 
Euch  von  selbst  zufallen"  is  referable  to  Shaftesbury's  doctrine  is  inter- 
esting. 

2  See  Leslie  Stephen :  History  of  English  Thought  in  the  Eighteenth 
Century,  vol.  2,  p.  24;  and  Hettner,  History  of  English  Literature,  p.  174. 

3  The  mooted  question  whether  Schiller  in  the  final  analysis,  particularly 
of  his  later  works,  is  to  be  accounted  moralist  or  aesthete  seems  to  be  wholly 
a  matter  of  emphasis;  while  on  the  whole,  the  earliest  penchant  discernible 
in  his  writings  lies  clearly  towards  an  interest  in  morals,  what  is  basic  in 
his  later  writings  is  not  so  clear.  Similarly,  Shaftesbury  proceeds  from 
his  interest  in  morals,  though  not  towards  aesthetics,  since  with  him  the 
aesthetical  judgment  is  coextensive  with  the  ethical  judgment,  and  the  per- 
ception of  the  good  follows  in  the  same  way  as  the  perception  of  the  beau- 
tiful. 

13 


14  Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 

Intuition;  the  Moral  Sense;  Aesthetic  Education 

That  man  is  by  nature  good  is  one  of  the  keynotes  of  Shaftes- 
bury and  this  idea  is  so  thoroughgoing  that  he  holds  it  is  only 
by  some  violent  perversion  of  his  nature  that  man  is  capable 
of  anything  bad.4  Schiller  supports  the  same  view,  although, 
curiously  enough,  he  finds  Kant's  arguments  correct  in  which 
he  establishes  a  basic  propensity  in  man  toward  evil;  such  an 
interpretation  of  human  nature,  however,  is  revolting  to  Schiller.5 

In  this  fundamental  conception  lienotabledifferences.  Shaftes- 
bury invariably  exaggerates  the  inherent  moral  sense  of  man, 
while  Schiller  prefers  to  treat  it  as  a  subjective  tendency  which 
needs  much  care  and  especial  training.  It  is  in  the  fuller  devel- 
opment of  the  ineradicable  good  that  Shaftesbury  goes  beyond 
what  Schiller  would  be  likely  to  subscribe  to,  although  Schiller 
is  content  to  be  less  explicit  upon  this  point  in  his  formal  utter- 
ances. Goodness  with  Shaftesbury,  almost  uniformly,  results 
from  conformity  with  an  external  and  hence  objective  thing — 
something  to  be  recognized  as  freely  and  as  unerringly  as  the 
excellence  of  a  work  of  art.  Schiller  takes  the  more  conven- 
tional view  of  goodness,  that  it  is  the  spiritual  part  of  man 
which  expresses  itself  from  within  outwards  towards  ideal  con- 
duct, but  which  corresponds  with  the  symmetry  and  perfection 
of  the  universe.  The  real  divergence,  however,  is  that  good- 
ness, according  to  Shaftesbury,  is  something  full-fledged,  and 
that  whatever  modifications  it  suffers  are  pretty  sure  to  be  on 
the  detrimental  side,  while  with  Schiller  the  process  of  education 
is  again  and  again  referred  to  as  absolutely  necessary  before 
the  supreme  achievement  of  a  beautiful  morality  can  be  approxi- 
mated. 

Schiller's  chief  contention  in  the  moral  education  of  mankind, 
the  insistence  upon  the  necessity  of  preliminary  training  in 


4  Shaftesbury  even  prescribes  the  development  of  the  sensuous  nature 
within  proper  limits.  Characteristics:  1:259-260.  Proper  self-love  is  cited 
as  the  highest  form  of  wisdom. 

6  One  cannot  escape  the  feeling  that  Schiller  would  be  much  more  willing 
to  subscribe  to  the  doctrine  of  ineradicable  goodness  to  the  extent  of  Shaftes- 
bury were  he  not  so  much  bound  by  his  logic  and,  more  especially,  by  the 
fear  of  "the  incisive  Kantian  question,"  as  he  puts  it.  Compare  his  essay 
on  "The  Service  to  Morals  of  Aesthetic  Habits." 


Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  15 

aesthetics  as  an  absolute  basis  for  moral  conduct,6  has,  broadly- 
speaking,  in  its  elaborate  transcendental  psychology  nothing 
with  which  Shaftesbury's  main  contention  that  the  study  of 
art  helps  to  form  a  just  taste  which  becomes  of  value  in  sensing 
harmony  may  be  compared. 

In  Shaftesbury  there  is  matter  of  fact,  if  not  altogether  com- 
monplace, reasoning  upon  the  value  of  training  for  the  moral 
nature  of  man.  Proceeding,  here  as  elsewhere,  to  draw  example 
from  the  physical  side  of  man  as  well  as  from  the  animal  king- 
dom, he  starts  with  the  thesis  that  unused  parts  become  impaired 
and  finally  diseased,  and  that  animals  who  do  not  fulfill  the 
tasks  that  nature  has  set  them  become  unnatural,  "lose  their 
instinct  and  ingenuity  of  their  kind,  whilst  they  continue  in 
the  pampered  state."7  So  with  man,  also,  it  has  been  arranged 
that  most  are  kept  busy;  some  men,  however,  are  provided  with 
all  things  by  the  labors  of  others  and  are  apt  to  remain  inactive 
if  they  do  not  devote  themselves  "to  letters,  sciences,  arts, 
husbandry  and  public  offices,  and  they  accordingly  sink  into 
settled  idleness,  supineness,  and  inactivity."  Shaftesbury  con- 
cludes: Such  a  life  "must  produce  a  total  disorder  of  the  passions, 
and  break  out  in  the  strangest  irregularities  imaginable."8 

At  bottom,  Shaftesbury's  discussion  on  this  point  is  merely 
a  plea  for  legitimate  exercise;  he  is  not  narrowly  concerned  with 
the  particular  kind  of  exercise  taken,  unless  it  be  for  the  fine 
gentlemen  where  he  undoubtedly  recommends  a  certain  amount 
of  activity  with  the  arts.  Schiller,  on  the  other  hand,  intends 
his  system  to  be  more  embracive  and  more  broadly  applicable. 

Laboriously  in  his  "Letters  on  Aesthetic  Education"  with  in 
many  places  a  disconcerting  wealth  of  paradoxical  statement 
and  even  of  fanciful  treatment,  Schiller  evolves  much  fine-spun 
theory,  and ,  while  he  never  once  comes  firmly  to  grips  with  his 
formal  subject,  the  cornerstone  of  his  faith,  the  essential  close- 
ness of  virtue  and  beauty,  is  clear  and  it  is  placed  conspicuously 
at  the  beginning  of  the  work.9 


6  Twenty-third  Letter:    "In  a  word,  there  is  no  other  way  of  making  the 
sensual  man  reasonable  but  by  first  making  him  aesthetic." 

7  Characteristics:   II:  132. 

8  Characteristics:   11:133. 

9  First  Letter.     (Goedeke's  Schiller,  X:  276.) 


1 6  Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 

The  chief  principles  elaborated  in  this  discussion  (we  have 
Schiller's  word  for  it)  are  Kantian;  certain  it  is  that  they  bear 
little  resemblance  in  their  treatment  to  Shaftesbury's  ideas. 
There  is  much  circumventive  logic  about  the  intellectual  and 
the  emotional  impulses,  masquerading  as  the  "matter-bent" 
and  the  "form-bent,"  really  the  earlier  contentions  in  new 
guise.  Schiller  finally  presses  on  to  an  abstraction  of  beauty, 
the  main  principles  established  on  the  way  being  that  melting 
beauty  relaxes  the  tense  man,  makes  the  sensual  man  thought- 
ful and  the  intellectual  man  susceptible  to  the  world  of  senti- 
ment, while  energetic  beauty  imparts  vigor  to  the  relaxed  man.10 
The  central  point  of  the  treatise,  however,  is  reached  where 
the  aesthetic  condition  by  eliminating  the  conflicting  elements 
in  man's  nature  clears  the  way  for  the  natural  impulses  to  func- 
tion unobstructed. 

In  the  idea  that  only  out  of  the  aesthetic  condition  can  the 
moral  properly  develop  Schiller  in  a  sense  inverts  Shaftesbury's 
contention,  since  Shaftesbury  holds  that  there  must  first  be 
inner  harmony,  meaning  a  moral  state,  before  the  outward 
beauties  can  be  observed.  But  Schiller's  whole  description  here 
goes  far  beyond  anything  Shaftesbury  suggests,  although  it 
is  unquestionably  in  this  parallelism,  if  not  identification  of 
ethical  with  the  aesthetical  judgment  in  Shaftesbury  and  in  the 
aesthetical  phase  of  the  double  standard  in  Schiller  that  simi- 
larities are  involved. 

These  similarities  verge  chiefly  on  the  function  of  taste  as 
an  ethical  determinant.  Taste  in  morals  is  cultivated,  accord- 
ing to  Shaftesbury,  precisely  as  taste  in  art,  that  is,  by  observing 
the  best  examples  and  studying  them;  but  this  moral  taste 
for  the  harmony  of  "inward  numbers"  is  a  fundamental  thing 
and  it  must  come  before  the  recognition  of  the  outward  har- 
monies, hence  Shaftesbury  conceives  the  success  of  the  "deserv- 
ing artist"  as  conditioned  by  his  understanding  for  moral 
beauty.11  Schiller's  description  of  the  function  of  taste  in 
ethical  judgment  is  treated  in  his  essay  "On  the  Service  to 
Morals  of  Aesthetic  Habits."  Here  Schiller  asserts  as  axiomatic 
that  the  moral  may  never  seek  its  justification  outside  of  itself, 
and  that  while  taste  may  favor  moral  conduct,  it  can  never  by 

10  Fifteenth  Letter.     (Goedeke's  Schiller,  X:  331.) 

11  Characteristics:   I:  338. 


Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  17 

itself  achieve  absolute  morality.12  He  thinks  of  taste  as  of 
true  religion  as  a  valuable  aid  toward  moral  conduct;  but  not 
that  the  aesthetic  sense  is  the  analogue  for  the  ethical,  and  it 
should  be  regarded  rather  as  a  supplement  to  it  instead  of  a 
substitute  for  it. 

The  transition  from  the  ethical  to  the  aesthetical  is  much 
more  immediate  in  Shaftesbury,  and  while  Schiller  brings  his 
ethics  and  aesthetics  into  closer  relations  by  his  suggested  edu- 
cative process,  Shaftesbury  is  content  to  see  but  slight  inde- 
pendent existence  of  these  principles,  and  he  either  merges 
them  or  maintains  the  completest  parallelism  throughout  their 
functioning,  regarding  them  coexistent  and  coextensive.  Just 
as  the  moral  sense  apprehends  what  is  good,  so  the  aesthetic 
sense  selects  what  is  proportionable.  It  is  only  in  his  more 
poetic  and  idealistic  conceptions  that  Schiller  approaches  Shaftes- 
bury's trust  in  the  emotional  and  aesthetical  operation  of  ethics. 
For  reality,  however,  they  do  not  overlap,  nor  in  their  practical 
workings  do  they  permit,  strictly  speaking,  of  parallelism. 

A  striking  similarity  on  the  intuitional  side  of  ethics,  one 
which  throws  considerable  light  upon  the  basic  views  of  both 
authors,  is  the  immediacy  with  which  the  recognition  of  the 
proper  kind  of  ethical  response  takes  place.13  In  the  story 
of  the  man  who  had  fallen  among  thieves,14  lost  his  clothes,  and 
was  forced  to  stay  by  the  roadside  in  cold  weather  awaiting 
help,  Schiller  has  five  travelers  pass  by  all  of  whom  wish  to 
help,  but  only  one  of  whom  is  capable  of  performing  an  ideal 
moral  act.  This  man,  without  reasoning  and  without  calling 
up  possible  kinds  of  conduct  before  the  bar  of  stern  justice, 
simply  acts  with  absolute  directness.  The  reason  for  the  in- 
hibition of  the  proper  response  from  the  other  characters  is 
interesting  and  closely  in  accord  with  the  favorite  views  of 
Shaftesbury.  The  first  man  is  unable  to  look  upon  any  human 
suffering,  and  he  absolves  his  obligation  by  leaving  his  purse — 
almost  the  precise  illustration  that  Shaftesbury  uses  to  show 
that  an  over-development  of  sympathy  is  harmful  since  it 
interferes  with  the  proper  functioning  of  the  social  affections. 
The  second  traveler  requires  pay  for  his  services.     The  third 

n  Goedeke's  Schiller:  X:  415. 

13  Schiller  admits  of  several  degrees  of  moral  action,  as  does  Shaftesbury. 

14  Schiller  to  Koerner,  February  18,  1793.     (Jonas  III:  261-263.) 


1 8  Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 

reluctantly  consents  to  the  use  of  his  horse  and  his  cloak,  fear- 
ing that  he  himself  may  suffer  from  exposure.  The  next  who 
chances  to  pass  by  is  an  enemy  of  the  wounded  man,  but  from 
sheer  pity  he  consents  to  help,  though  not  to  forgive.  Acting 
from  mere  impulse,  the  last  man  sets  down  his  bundle  to  take 
up  and  carry  the  wounded  man.  Schiller's  real  quarrel  with 
the  first  four  men  is  that  they  remain  too  conscious  of  "them- 
selves and  their  belongings,"  while  the  act  of  the  last  man  is 
spontaneous,  unasked  and  undebated.  Schiller  dilates  especially 
upon  what  he  calls  an  autonomy  of  result,  which,  however,  may 
follow  from  a  diversity  of  means.  Shaftesbury,  also,  in  his 
discussion  of  temperance  requires  an  absolute  autonomy  in 
morals.15  Furthermore,  Shaftesbury  expressly  declares  that  the 
good  man  is  led  by  some  "immediate  affection,  directly  and  not 
accidentally  to  good  and  against  evil,"16  and  there  is  not  a 
better  illustration  of  an  act  being  done,  as  Shaftesbury  puts  it, 
"through  insufficient  and  unequal  affection"17  than  the  very 
cases  Schiller  has  here  adduced.  In  another  place  Shaftesbury, 
in  speaking  about  the  immediacy  of  the  recognition  of  the 
ethical,  says:  "A  man  of  thorough  good  breeding  .  .  .  never 
deliberates  in  this  case,  or  considers  of  the  matter  by  prudential 
rules  of  self-interest  and  advantage.  He  acts  from  his  nature, 
in  a  manner  necessarily  and  without  reflection:  and  if  he  did 
not,  it  were  impossible  for  him  to  answer  his  character."18 

Both  Shaftesbury  and  Schiller,  therefore,  tend  to  throw  out 
reflection  and  debate,  not  only  on  the  ground  of  being  unnec- 
essary, but  that  they  tend  to  subvert  the  moral  purpose  and 
end,  since  in  Schiller's  mind  they  invite  a  diversity  apparent 
in  the  result,  and  to  Shaftesbury  reflection  and  debate  in  such 
principles  are  proof  of  an  insufficient  affection,  hence  they 
destroy  the  moral  value  of  an  act,  and,  indeed,  make  it  "in- 
iquous  and  wrong."19 

Hedonism 

It  is  particularly  in  those  early  works  of  Schiller  which  re- 
sulted from  the  impetus  afforded  him  in  the  personality  and 

"Characteristics:   II:  251. 

16  Shaftesbury  would  not  admit  that  the  action  of  the  first  four  men  in 
Schiller's  example  were  moral. 

17  Characteristics :   1 1 :  3 1 . 

18  Characteristics :  1:129. 

19  Characteristics :   II :  3 1. 


Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  19 

the  intellectual  bent  of  his  beloved  teacher  Abel20  that  the 
hedonistic  side  of  his  thought  becomes  defined;  and,  in  fact, 
the  bulk  of  his  thinking  on  this  side  may  be  somewhat  sharply 
demarcated  as  occurring  before  the  period  in  which  his  thought 
is  modified  and  constrained  from  its  contact  with  the  thought 
of  Kant. 

In  Schiller's  ecstatic  school-boy  writings,  and  particularly  in 
"Gehoert  allzuviel  Guete,  Leutseligkeit  und  Freygebigkeit  im 
engen  Verstande  zur  Tugend"  and  in  "Die  Tugend  in  ihren 
Folgen  betrachtet,"  which  are  definitely  known  to  be  his,21 
there  is  the  same  conception  of  happiness  which  is  familiar 
from  Shaftesbury,  who  writes:  "That  to  have  the  natural 
affections  is  to  have  the  chief  means  and  power  of  self  enjoy- 
ment, the  highest  possession  and  happiness  of  life."22  Happiness 
is  thus  made  the  reward  of  the  virtuous  life  ;23  but  neither  author 
in  this  connection  is  sufficiently  hedonistic  to  explain  all  the 
motives  in  a  moral  act  upon  the  basis  of  their  bringing  happi- 
ness, rather  do  they  regard  it  as  a  fortunate  coincidence  that 
the  virtuous  life  leads  to  happiness. 

Schiller  avoids  the  difficulty  of  confusing  an  intuitional  with 
a  hedonistic  ethics  by  having  man  omit  consciously  to  formu- 
late ideas  on  the  motives  toward  virtue,  either  as  to  his  own 
inclination  or  as  to  nature's  purpose;  in  fact,  Schiller  clearly 
calls  into  prominence  the  idea  that  man  may  not  be  conscious 
of  nature's  purpose  to  achieve  his  happiness.24     Shaftesbury, 

20  Abel,  as  is  well  known,  drew  up  his  doctrines  according  to  Fergusson, 
but  any  external  evidence  as  to  how  far  Shaftesbury  through  Fergusson 
came  into  relief  is  not  clearly  established.  Abel's  spirit  and  interests  were 
essentially  those  of  the  moralist. 

21  The  earlier  work,  "Whether  the  Friendship  of  a  Prince  is  the  same  as 
that  of  an  ordinary  man,"  which  may  or  may  not  be  Schiller's,  has  another 
theme  which  Shaftesbury  used  and  which  appealed  strongly  to  Fergusson, 
notably  the  insistence  upon  the  social  basis  for  happiness. 

22  Characteristics:   II:  126. 

23  Curiously  dissonant  with  the  general  earlier  trend  of  his  beliefs  is  Schiller's 
poem  "Resignation,"  dating  from  the  Mannheim  period,  though  not  printed 
until  much  later.  Virtue  and  happiness  are  in  this  poem  set  at  odds.  It 
has  been  suggested  that  this  poem  is  not  intended  to  represent  its  author's 
views;  one  does  not  like  to  beg  the  question,  however,  and  the  poem  should 
have  its  place  in  the  creed  of  negation  which  is  not  large  in  Schiller. 

24  Barring  an  earlier  statement  that  the  way  of  happiness  is  none  other 
than  the  love  of  happiness. 


20  Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 

likewise,  calls  nature  to  the  support  of  his  hedonistic  conten- 
tions; and  in  turning  abruptly  as  he  does  in  the  second  volume 
of  the  Characteristics  from  the  idea  that  the  mere  recognition 
of  virtue  is  the  reason  for  embracing  it  to  descant  on  the  motive 
for  the  virtuous  act,  Shaftesbury  invites  an  element  of  serious 
inconsistency  into  his  system.25 

EUDAEMONISM 

Further,  though  less  striking,  inconsistencies  exist  in  the 
eudaemonistic26  tendencies  which  occur  in  the  work  of  both 
authors,  chiefly,  however,  in  Shaftesbury,  since  it  is  quite  con- 
ceivable that  the  idealistic  Schiller  is  less  ready  to  align  himself 
with  any  belief  which  includes  the  possibility  of  utility,27  and 
he  is  also  usually  less  concerned  with  the  social  aspects  of  virtue. 
But  with  Shaftesbury,  on  the  other  hand,  the  principle  that 
virtue  is  the  real  good  of  the  individual  as  well  as  of  the  species 
is  voiced  consistently  throughout,28  the  natural  variant  being, 
since  virtue  and  beauty  are  the  same,  that  beauty  is  the  real 
good.29 

In  the  belief  that  virtue  is  for  the  individual's  good,  Shaftes- 
bury undertakes  to  support  his  convictions  from  his  notion 
of  the  psychology  of  ethics,  inquiring  about  the  reaction  of 
beliefs  upon  the  men  who  hold  them;  and  it  is  thus  that  virtue 
and  interest  coincide,  since  the  proper  opinion  of  the  good 
makes  for  the  individual's  good.30  And  according  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  affections  whatever  is  good  for  the  individual  is 


25  Characteristics:  II:  67.  "Whoever,  therefore,  by  any  strong  persuasion 
or  settled  judgment,  thinks  in  the  main  that  virtue  causes  happiness  and 
vice  misery,  carries  with  him  that  security  and  assistance  to  virtue  which 
is  required." 

26  The  word  eudaemonism  is  here  used  in  its  accepted,  narrower  meaning 
of  welfare,  implying  the  welfare  either  of  the  individual  or  of  the  race,  hence 
it  remains  distinct  from  hedonism  for  pleasure  and  the  good  do  not  of  nec- 
essity agree. 

27  Third  Letter.  Schiller,  in  objecting  vigorously  to  the  utilitarianism 
of  his  day,  demands  in  the  place  of  the  narrower  conception  of  utility  a  com- 
plete conformity  to  higher  intellectual  purposes. 

28  Characteristics:  II:  226-239;  III:  223. 

29  Characteristics:  II:  339. 

30  Characteristics:  III:  200. 


Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  21 

also  good  for  the  public,  and  the  two  are  brought  by  Shaftes- 
bury into  an  almost  complete  identity.31 

Mildness  versus  Rigorism 

Leaving  aside  for  the  nonce  these  somewhat  general  classi- 
fications into  the  various  categories  of  belief  and  turning  for 
a  while  to  consider  the  temperaments  of  these  authors,  it  is 
clear  that  the  ineluctable  penchant  in  both  Schiller  and  Shaftes- 
bury toward  refinement,32  suavity  and  mildness  is  unques- 
tionably an  important  item  in  determining  the  basic  elements 
of  their  ethics.  Schiller  pronounces  with  nowhere  greater 
emphasis,  perhaps,  upon  the  need  of  refinement  than  in  his 
surprising  review  of  Buerger's  poetry,33  and  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  at  that  time  he  had  recovered  fully  from  his  youth- 
ful extravagances  and  had  become  what  he  afterwards  remained. 
In  a  letter  to  Goethe34  Schiller  praises  the  Christian  religion 
since  it  does  away  with  the  necessity  for  the  stern  Kantian 
imperative,  and  in  its  place  it  puts  a  free  inclination :  as  a  mani- 
festation of  aesthetical  principles  Schiller  regards  the  Christian 
religion  the  highest.  Schiller's  very  definition  of  virtue  is 
significant,  virtue  being  an  inclination  toward  duty.35  Else- 
where, Schiller  arraigns  Kantian  rigorism36  since  it  makes  pro- 
vision for  the  servants  and  slaves,  not  for  the  children  of  the 
household.  Furthermore,  he  questions  whether  mere  force  is 
ever  satisfactory  in  ethics  and  impugns  the  whole  system  of 
force  and  coercion  in  a  famous  passage  by  saying  that  the  beaten 
enemy  may  rise  again  and  only  the  reconciled  foe  is  truly  over- 
come.37    Coercion  to  do  good  either  by  hope  of  reward  or  by 


31  Very  erroneously  has  Walter  Mohns,  in  his  monograph  on  Herbart's 
Relation  to  the  English  Moral  Philosophy,  Langensalza,  19 14,  dilated  upon 
the  "gulf  which  exists  between  the  self  and  the  social  affections"  in  Shaftes- 
bury.    He  seems  on  this  point  totally  to  misapprehend  Shaftesbury. 

32  Excepting,  of  course,  some  of  the  earliest  poetic  and  dramatic  effusions 
of  Schiller,  such  as  a  few  poems  from  the  Anthology  and  "The  Robbers." 

33  Goedeke's  Schiller:  VI :  314. 

34  August  17,  1795. 

36  Goedeke's  Schiller:  X:  99. 

36  Goedeke's  Schiller:  X:  10 1.  Shaftesbury  also  speaks  contemptuously 
of  coercion  as  suitable  only  for  the  vulgar.  Characteristics:  III:  177;  also, 
I:  127. 

37  Goedeke's  Schiller:  X:  100. 


22  Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 

fear  of  punishment  is  especially  treated  by  Shaftesbury;38  and 
he  concludes  that  any  moral  act  which  is  produced  under  re- 
straint is  no  more  to  be  accounted  truly  moral  than  a  wild 
beast  in  chains  is  to  be  accounted  gentle.  Both  authors  partake 
of  the  generous  attitude  which  accords  even  villains  and  thieves39 
elementary  virtue,  chivalry  and  honor;  and  they  prefer  to  con- 
template those  moral  acts  which  proceed  in  all  freedom  and 
joy  of  the  spirit,  without  conflicting  divisions  of  the  emotions, 
and,  especially,  with  no  trace  of  compulsion,  coercion  or  mas- 
tery. 

Closely  allied  with  these  inclinations  is  Shaftesbury's  con- 
ception of  the  roles  that  good  breeding  and  education40  play 
in  the  moral  life.  It  seems,  however,  that  Shaftesbury  requires 
what  might  be  styled  gentlemanliness  rather  than  vigor  of 
mind.  The  narrow  and  the  foppish  distinction  that  he  makes 
between  the  vulgar  and  the  well-bred  man  has  brought  him 
much  deserved  criticism.  Similarly,  in  Schiller's  essay  on 
"Grace  and  Dignity,"  particularly  in  the  conception  of  the 
"beautiful  soul,"  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  the  serene, 
untroubled  countenance  and  the  gentle,  flowing  movements 
are  masculine  attributes.41 


38  Characteristics:   11:55. 

39  Characteristics:  II:  39;  compare  for  Schiller  the  Philosophical  Letters 
(Julius  to  Raphael). 

"Characteristics:   II:  38;  also,  I:  129 

41  Such  a  caricature  of  life  as  Schiller  elaborates  in  the  first  part  of  this 
essay  cannot  but  lay  its  author  open  to  serious  question,  both  as  an  artist 
and,  more  particularly,  as  a  thinker.  If  the  discussion  is,  as  I  am  half  in- 
clined to  take  it,  a  subtle  tribute  to  a  beautiful  woman,  it  seems  excusable; 
but  if  not,  then  Schiller,  like  Shaftesbury,  must  be  convicted  of  deliberately 
closing  his  eyes  to  some  of  the  noblest  and  best  elements  in  human  char- 
acter. The  contrast  with  modern  thought  is,  perhaps,  clear  enough  without 
a  definite  background,  but  when  compared  with  Hardy's  description  in 
"The  Return  of  the  Native"  of  Clym  Yeobright's  face  after  thought  had 
had  its  way  with  it,  the  difference  is  striking.  Schiller  (in  Hempel's  trans- 
lation): "In  a  beautiful  soul,  sensuality  and  reason,  duty  and  inclination, 
exist  in  harmony,  which  is  made  manifest  to  the  eye  by  lovely  forms.  It  is 
only  when  subserving  the  behests  of  a  beautiful  soul  that  nature  can  be  free 
and  yet  preserve  her  forms;  for  the  former  is  lost  under  the  tyranny  of  a 
rigid  mind,  and  the  latter  under  the  anarchy  of  sensual  excesses.  A  beauti- 
ful soul  spreads  an  irresistible  loveliness  even  over  a  person  without  natural 
beauty;  it  may  even  triumph  over  natural  defects.  Every  motion  emanating 
from  such  a  soul  will  seem  easy,  gentle,  and  yet  animated.     The  eye  will 


Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  23 

Harmony 

The  doctrine  of  harmony  is  at  once  the  most  durable  and 
the  most  conspicuous  link  between  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury. 
Of  the  two  writers  it  is,  perhaps,  the  more  conclusive  and  funda- 
mental with  Shaftesbury,  while  with  Schiller  it  represents  a 
port,  as  it  were,  towards  which  he  is  ever  sailing,  but  in  which 
actually,  though  not  in  his  fancy,  he  never  drops  anchor.  This 
dominant  search  for  harmony  in  the  universe  and  in  an  under- 
standing of  life  begins  in  the  earliest  metaphysical  speculations 
of  Schiller,  where  he  is  seeking  a  real  basis  for  harmony  amid 
the  seemingly  conflicting  themes  of  matter  and  spirit.42  To 
establish  harmony  here  the  problem,  quite  obviously,  is  to 
span  the  gulf  between  the  material  and  the  spiritual.  In  this 
attempt,  of  course,  Schiller  has  not  been  successful,  and  out- 
side of  a  certain  fanciful  imagery  the  work  is  little  interesting; 
but  the  attempt  thus  early  to  formulate  one  of  the  problems 
which  never  lost  its  appeal  for  his  mind  is  sufficiently  striking-. 
The  subsequent  forms  that  this  question  took  were  to  establish 
a  basis  upon  which  could  be  founded  the  proper  balance  between 
duty  and  inclination,  whereby  these  two  elements,  usually  so 
prone  to  conflict,  are  capable  of  correlation,  between  the  emo- 
tional and  the  intellectual  impulses,  and,  finally,  between  the 
moral  and  the  aesthetic  side  of  man.  With  Shaftesbury  there 
is  no  conscious  striving  to  attain  harmony  out  of  conflicting 
elements;43  rather  does  Shaftesbury  assume  that  harmony  exists 

beam  with  brightness  and  a  perfect  absence  of  restraint;  the  light  of  emotion 
will  radiate  from  its  center.  The  gentleness  of  heart  will  impart  a  loveliness 
to  the  mouth  which  no  dissimulation  could  feign.  There  will  be  no  rigidity 
to  the  features,  no  restraint  in  the  voluntary  motions,  for  the  soul  is  uncon- 
scious of  either.  The  musical  voice  will  move  the  heart  with  the  pure  stream 
of  modulations."  Hardy:  "The  view  of  life  as  a  thing  to  be  put  up  with, 
replacing  that  zest  for  existence  which  was  so  intense  in  early  civilization, 
must  ultimately  enter  so  thoroughly  into  the  constitution  of  the  advanced 
races  that  its  facial  expression  will  become  accepted  as  the  new  artistic  depar- 
ture. People  already  feel  that  a  man  who  without  disturbing  a  curve  of 
feature,  or  setting  a  mark  of  mental  concern  anywhere  upon  himself,  is  too 
far  removed  from  modern  perceptiveness  to  be  a  modern  type." 

42  Goedeke's  Schiller:   I:  142. 

"Characteristics:  II:  365.  "If  there  be  two  principles  in  nature  either 
they  must  agree,  or  not." 


24  Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 

and  is  everywhere  fundamental.44  This  broad  and  deliberate 
assumption,  taken  as  a  point  of  departure,  makes  plain  a  host 
of  differing  relations  in  the  universe,  since  in  the  fashion  also  of 
Leibnitz  evil  is  recognized  but  interpreted  as  good  in  disguise,  and 
it  affords  an  answer  to  the  most  irrelevant  and  diverse  questions. 

If  one  were  to  assemble  into  a  single  group  all  the  passages 
in  which  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  sing  the  praises  of  harmony, 
of  whatever  sort,  and  mention  it  as  an  ultimate,  or  as  a  basic 
principle,  their  number  would  be  very  considerable  and  would 
represent  the  utmost  chronological  difference  in  the  writings. 

A  common  point  of  view  from  which  both  Schiller  and  Shaftes- 
bury review  harmony  is  that  it  is  the  natural  and  the  healthful 
state.  Shaftesbury,  with  his  predilection  for  examples  out  of 
the  animal  world,  shows  how  the  vicious  animal  is  actually  ill, 
unnatural,  and  not  "at  one  with  himself,"  while  Schiller  seek- 
ing added  light  from  the  field  of  anatomy,  comes  to  similar 
conclusions.45  It  is  noteworthy  in  this  connection  that  Schiller 
in  his  insistence  upon  the  correlation  of  the  animal  nature  of 
man  with  his  spiritual  nature  does  not  require  checking  of  the 
animal  side;  in  fact,  this  early  essay  lay  considerable  stress 
upon  the  equal  claims  of  both  parts  of  man.46  Shaftesbury 
likewise  does  not  underrate  the  claims  of  the  body,  but  wishes 
it  to  assert  its  proper  rights  along  with  the  higher  intellectual 
pleasures;  it  is  only  when  it  crowds  out  the  better  things  of 
life,  by  becoming  over  developed,  that  he  rebukes  it. 

Exceedingly  close  is  Schiller  to  the  Shaftesburian  concep- 
tion47 when  he  describes  body  and  soul  as  two  vibrant  strings,48 

44  Compare  the  tart  humor  of  Leslie  Stephen:  " Freethinking  and  Plain- 
speaking,"  p.  273.  "Standing  amidst  the  relics  of  the  desperate  struggle 
of  this  life,  amongst  the  carnage  and  shrieks  of  the  wounded  and  the  brutal 
triumph  of  the  conquerors,  Shaftesbury  finds  a  solace  in  his  elegant  smelling 
bottle,  skillfully  compounded  of  the  best  philosophical  essences." 

45  Goedeke's  Schiller:  I:  163.  "The  movement  of  the  brain  is  no  longer 
harmony,  it  is  convulsion." 

46  It  is  quite  natural  that  Schiller  fresh  from  his  medical  studies  should 
in  the  early  part  of  his  ethical  discussions  grant  physiological  claims  a  readier 
hearing  than  in  his  later  essays,  where  he  considers  the  other  side,  showing 
how  the  spirit  fashions  the  body.     Compare,  also,  Goedeke's  Schiller:  X:  70. 

47  Goedeke's  Schiller:   I:  165. 

48  Characteristics:  II:  94.  "It  may  be  said  properly  to  be  the  same  with 
the  affections  in  the  animal  constitution  as  with  the  cords  of  strings  of  a 
musical  instrument.     If  these,  though  in  ever  so  just  proportion  one  to  an- 


Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  25 

the  striking  of  one  of  which  sets  up  a  sympathetic  vibration 
in  the  other.  This  is  in  Schiller's  thought  the  wonderful,  pre- 
determined sympathy  which  makes  the  heterogeneous  prin- 
ciples in  the  nature  of  man  into  a  single  thing,  hence  Schiller 
does  not  think  of  an  independent  existence  of  body  and  soul, 
but  rather  of  their  most  intimate  mixture  in  the  alembic  of 
humanity. 

Removing  the  conception  of  harmony  from  the  realm  of 
physiology  and  of  metaphysics  and  bringing  it  over  into  ethics, 
it  is  apparent  that  there  is  much  less  straight  thinking  than 
before.  Shaftesbury's  realism  and  Schiller's  idealism,  it  is  true, 
explain  divergency  in  accent  and  in  emphasis,  and,  if  rightly 
understood,  they  go  far  towards  explaining  what  at  first  sight 
might  seem  sheer  inconsequence  and  inconsistency  of  thought. 

The  premises,  as  shown,  of  Shaftesbury  are  reasonable  enough: 
"It  is  as  hard  to  find  an  altogether  good  man  as  an  altogether 
bad  man";49  and  "it  is  usual  to  praise  a  man  who  goes  through 
a  struggle  to  overcome  evil  more  than  one  who  needs  no  struggle, 
yet  the  propensity  to  sin  is  not  an  ingredient  of  virtue." So  Once 
he  is  taken  up  with  the  discussion  of  virtue,  however,  he  sees 
it  only  on  the  brightest  side,  and  all  jarring  elements,  struggles, 
and  imperatives  are  waived.  In  this  way  Shaftesbury  engages 
in  the  difficulty  of  recognizing  a  variety  of  elements  in  the 
beginning,  only  to  choose  those  which  are  relevant  to  his  main 
assumptions  of  harmony  and  beauty.  Schiller,  too,  although 
perhaps  more  excusably,  clearly  recognizes  at  first  a  jarring 
discord,  but  it  is  his  chief  concern  to  resolve  these  dissonant 
elements  in  man's  nature,  or  in  the  universe,  into  a  complete 
harmony. 

This  realization  of  complete  harmony  tends  with  Schiller 
to  become  a  wholly  ideal  achievement,  not  one  towards  which 
the  human  race  can  proceed  with  hope  of  immediate,  but  only 
in  the  hope  of  ultimate  success.  It  is  true  that  his  poetic  imag- 
ination frequently  gets  the  better  of  his  judgment  so  that  he 

other,  are  strained  beyond  a  certain  degree,  'tis  more  than  the  instrument 
will  bear.  On  the  other  hand,  if  while  some  of  the  strings  are  duly  strained, 
others  are  not  wound  up  to  their  due  proportion,  then  is  the  instrument 
still  in  disorder,  and  its  part  ill  performed." 

49  Characteristics:   II:  39. 

60  Ibid. 


26  Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 

speaks  of  this  state  as  though  it  were  reached,61  and  his  enthusi- 
asm for  Greek  civilization  at  least  lends  color  to  his  belief  that 
attainment  of  harmony  in  life  and  in  the  state  is  possible,  yet, 
when  he  is  frank  with  himself,  he  is  unable  to  shut  out  the 
appalling  pictures  of  his  time,  or  to  find  any  explanation  of  them 
which  is  agreeable  to  his  mind. 

Hand  in  hand  with  this  striving  for  harmony  goes  the  dislike 
for  disharmony  and  confusion,  whether,  as  with  Shaftesbury, 
this  feeling  becomes  thoroughgoing  enough  to  throw  out  any 
decision  which  involves  it,  where  the  motives  are  at  variance, 
or  whether,  as  with  Schiller's  view  of  less  positiveness,  con- 
flicting motives  are  at  the  most,  admissible  only  in  the  means 
never  in  the  end  and  result  in  the  ideal  act.  Both  writers 
firmly  hold  to  the  ideal  conception  that  the  whole  character 
must  be  moral,  so  that  it  may  broadly  evidence  itself  in  the 
moral  life,  not  in  individual  acts.  This,  in  Shaftesbury's  par- 
lance, is  the  "intire  affection."52  Schiller,  also,  speaks  of  totality 
of  character,53  and  he  is  explicit  that  "man  is  not  intended  to 
perform  isolated  moral  acts,  but  to  be  a  moral  being;  not  vir- 
tues but  morality  is  the  requirement."  And  this  is  precisely 
the  point  upon  which  Schiller  attacks  Kant,  for  if  the  person 
must  summon  before  his  nicely  poised  ethical  concepts  every 
new  situation  which  involves  various  possibilities  of  moral 
response,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  element  of  confusion  which 
Schiller  is  at  such  pains  to  escape  is  not  only  made  possible 
but  it  is  actually  invited.  Manifestly,  however,  the  problem 
of  totality  in  moral  character  exists  more  for  Schiller  than  for 
Shaftesbury,  because  Schiller's  mind  was  at  times  largely  ob- 
sessed with  the  magnitude  of  the  conflicting  elements  in  human 
character,  and  who  sought  shelter  from  stern  reality  by  postu- 
lating ideal  conditions. 

61  Especially  is  this  true  of  the  first  part  of  the  essay  on  "Grace  and  Dig- 
nity." For  doubts  about  the  immediate  or  even  of  the  remote  attainment 
of  the  ideal  state:  Goedeke's  Schiller:  X:  105.  "But  this  beauty  of  char- 
acter, the  ultimate  product  of  his  humanity,  is  merely  an  idea,  to  achieve 
which  he  may  strive,  but  which,  however,  he  can  never  quite  attain."  Com- 
pare, also,  the  Fourteenth  Letter:  "It  is  in  the  real  sense  of  the  word  the 
idea  of  his  humanity,  an  infinite  thing,  to  which  as  he  goes  on  he  can  approach 
more  closely,  but  never  exactly  attain." 

62  Characteristics:   11:113-114. 

63  Sixth  Letter.  For  Schiller's  whole  discussion  on  the  point  see  Goedeke's 
edition :  X :  99 


Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  27 

"Beautiful  Soul" — "Virtuoso" 

Working  from  the  kind  of  emotional  perceptionalism  that 
is  at  the  basis  of  the  thinking  of  both  authors,  it  is  logical  that 
the  culmination  of  ethical  creed  should  be  comparable  in  each. 
It  is  Schiller,  however,  who  has  been  able  to  bring  to  bear  the 
full  weight  of  his  poetic  imagination  and  depict  an  ideal  with 
attractiveness.  Schiller's  long  intellectual  and  emotional  ap- 
prenticeship in  the  service  of  the  ideas  of  harmony,  correlation, 
and  regulation  has  in  its  natural  course  led  up  to  the  preparation 
of  a  highly  specialized  thing.  The  most  conspicuous  service 
rendered  by  the  conception  of  harmony  is  the  ideal  of  the  "beau- 
tiful soul." 

As  far  as  the  merely  outward  facts  are  concerned,  there  are 
few  intimate  bonds54  between  the  "beautiful  soul"  and  the 
"virtuoso."  Shaftesbury's  ideal  is  the  man  of  the  world,  "the 
refined  wit  of  the  age,"55  a  well-bred  gentleman,  one  who  has 
traveled  abroad  and  who  knows  the  political  life  of  the  principal 
nations  of  Europe.  This  "virtuoso"  has  much  in  common  with 
the  philosophers  who  in  their  inquiries  simply  "carry  good 
breeding  a  step  higher."56  The  sum  of  philosophy,  according 
to  Shaftesbury's  mind,  or  of  "virtuosoship,"  is  to  learn  what  is 
just  in  society,  and  beautiful  in  nature,  and  in  the  order  of  the 
world.  But  the  "virtuoso"  is  not  primarily  an  ethical  ideal, 
and  Shaftesbury  merely  contends  that  "virtuosoship"  is  a  closer 
approach  to  becoming  virtuous  and  sensible,  than  being  a  scholar.57 

64 That  Schiller's  conception  of  the  "beautiful  soul"  is  consciously  pat- 
terned after  Shaftesbury's  "virtuoso"  is  the  belief  of  Windleband  in  his 
History  of  Philosophy,  in  English  translation,  p.  602;  and  of  Walzel  in  his 
prefatory  remarks  to  the  eleventh  volume  of  the  Cotta,  Saekular  edition  of 
Schiller's  works. 

"Characteristics:   III:  156. 

56  Characteristics:   III:  161. 

67  It  is  interesting  in  his  demands  for  "virtuosoship"  and  good-breeding 
that  Shaftesbury  requires  the  polished  gentleman  in  his  researches  to  rest 
content  with  the  more  general  studies,  with  those  in  which  the  beauty  and 
harmony  of  life  are  most  apparent,  for  if  the  student  so  far  forgets  the  gentle- 
man as  to  proceed  into  the  niceties  of  "insect  and  shell-fish  life,"  he  becomes 
quite  fitly  subject  for  ridicule.  This  word  of  caution  from  Shaftesbury  is 
enlightening  and  of  intrinsic  worth  since  it  suggests  the  extent  to  which 
Shaftesbury  inclines  to  go  in  the  admission  of  the  formative  value  of  external 
things;  and  Shaftesbury  does  not  hesitate  to  condemn  the  education  in  his 
time  since  it  tended  to  make  scholarship,  on  the  whole,  less  compatible  with 
virtue  than  "virtuosoship." 


28  Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 

The  real  rapprochement  between  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 
does  not,  however,  rest  wholly  upon  inference,  for  in  the  latter 
part  of  his  extended  treatment  of  "virtuosi"  and  philosophers58 
Shaftesbury  distinctly  requires  "a  heart  and  resolution"59  to 
complete  the  character. 

Schiller  really  regards  the  "heart  and  resolution"  to  be  the 
all-important  part  of  the  "beautiful  soul,"  and  his  almost  com- 
plete absorption  in  the  discussion  of  the  subjective  conditions 
which  explain  it  form  the  most  striking  element  in  his  treat- 
ment. The  "beautiful  soul"  is  a  highly  particularized  ideal, 
and  Schiller  goes  so  far  as  to  say  it  has  no  other  merit  than 
that  it  exists.60 

The  "virtuoso"  patterns  his  life  according  to  the  external 
harmonies  present  in  the  fine  arts,  while  the  "beautiful  soul," 
in  so  far  as  it  assumes  the  proportions  of  a  reality,  is  a  beauti- 
ful, essentially  feminine  manifestation  of  nature,  in  which  all 
the  varied  and  elsewhere  conflicting  elements  of  feeling  have 
achieved  absolute  consonance,  and  of  which  the  outward  move- 
ments are  but  the  measured  symbols  of  an  inner,  well  nigh 
oriental  spiritual  tranquility. 

Moral  Grace 

Most  thoroughly  in  accord  with  ideal  harmony  is  the  con- 
ception of  moral  grace  and  beauty,  which  stands  for  both  authors 
as  the  supreme  achievement  of  art  and  ethics.  This  tendency 
to  award  moral  beauty  the  highest  place  is  implicit  in  Schiller's 
whole  system  (his  flattering  remarks  upon  Corneille's  Cid  as 
the  acme  of  art  because  the  plot  demands  no  evil  have  not  been 
sufficiently  quoted),  and  this  inclination  is  traceable  to  his 
earliest  writings.  In  the  Kallias  Letters  Schiller  is  amazed 
that  Kant  can  put  the  beauty  of  a  fanciful,  oriental  scroll-work 
over  that  of  the  highest  beauty  of  humanity.61  Here  again 
Schiller  thinks  of  such  beauty  of  character  as  an  ideal  to  be 
striven  toward.  That  Buerger  did  not  strive  towards  such 
beauty,  and  that  he  felt  no  moral  answerableness  to  his  readers, 

68  Characteristics:   111:156-163. 

69  Ibid. 

60  Shaftesbury  has  a  similar  idea:  Characteristics:  II:  292.  "Man  may 
be  virtuous;  and  in  being  so  is  happy.     His  merit  is  his  reward." 

61  Schiller  to  Koerner,  Jena,  25  January,  1793.     Jonas:    III:  238. 


Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  29 

or  to  himself,  caused  Schiller  to  speak  so  harshly  about  his 
work.  Imperfection  in  form  Schiller  could  forgive,  but  not 
indifference  toward  what  he  considered  the  poet's  exalted  pre- 
rogative and  duty,  the  cultivation  of  a  beautiful  morality.  At 
the  very  end  of  his  career  in  the  lyrical  intermezzo  entitled 
"Homage  to  the  Arts"  Schiller  is  still  interested  in  perfect 
morality  as  the  ultimate  beauty.62  Shaftesbury,  also,  declares 
that  the  inward  beauties  are  the  most  real  and  essential,  and 
the  most  naturally  affecting;  but  in  his  declaration  of  the  "profit 
and  advantage"  to  be  derived  from  such  beauties  Schiller  would 
be  little  likely  to  concur.63  Elsewhere,  Shaftesbury  conceives 
the  study  of  the  inward  perfection  and  the  moral  grace  to  be 
the  highest;  and  he  believes  that  an  appreciation  of  this  "moral 
grace  and  Venus"  forms  the  proper  criterion  for  distinguishing 
between  merit  and  blemish,  virtue  and  deformity.  In  the 
discussion  of  the  "better  self"64  Shaftesbury  gives  an  almost 
precise  analogue  of  Schiller's  idea,  expressed  in  his  letters  on 
aesthetics,65  that  every  one  carries  within  himself  a  purely  ideal 
personality,  and  that  it  is  his  task  to  correlate  all  the  tendencies 
of  his  nature  with  the  unswerving  unity  of  this  ideal  character. 
It  is  through  this  ideal  of  absolute  morality  that  aesthetics 
and  ethics  again  meet  in  the  beliefs  of  both  authors,  and  just 
as  the  ethical  judgment  in  Shaftesbury's  scheme  is  made  to 
depend  upon  a  feeling  for  the  symmetrical  in  conduct,  and  in 
Schiller  to  depend  upon  a  cultivated  taste,  so  in  the  completest 
beauty  there  is  a  reversion  to  the  basic  ethical  element. 

God  and  the  Universe 
There  are  several  similarities66  between  Shaftesbury's  "Phil- 
osophical  Rhapsody"67  and  Schiller's   "Philosophical   Letters, 

62  "  Doch  Schoenres  find  ich  nichts,  wie  lang  ich  waehle, 

Als  in  der  schoenen  Form — die  schoene  Seele." 

63  Characteristics :   III:  185. 

64  Characteristics :   1 :  28 1 . 

66 Fourth  Letter:  "Every  individual,  we  may  say,  because  of  his  position 
and  destiny  in  the  world,  bears  a  purely  ideal  man  within  himself,  and  it  is 
the  great  task  of  his  existence  to  bring  all  the  varying  tendencies  of  his  na- 
ture into  unison  with  the  absolute  unity  of  this  ideal." 

66  The  general  similarity  between  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  Dilthey  men- 
tions: Works:  II:  342.  "Then  it  will  be  shown  further  that  Shaftesbury 
has  been  of  equal  influence  with  Spinoza  for  the  German  Pantheism  of  Schiller 
in  his  early  works  and  of  Goethe  and  Herder." 

67  Characteristics:  11:181-443. 


30  Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 

Julius  to  Raphael."  The  rhapsodical  vein  in  which  both  essays 
are  conceived  is  perhaps  the  most  noticeable  outward  trait  in 
common.  Two  friends  in  both  cases  are  the  chief  figures,  and 
the  more  important  contributions  are  made  in  each  work  by 
the  more  effusive  of  the  two,  the  second  member  acting  as  an 
intellectual  check  to  the  unbounded  enthusiasm  of  his  friend. 
Both  works,  also,  deserve  mention  among  the  "theodicies"  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  since  in  function,  if  not  in  defined  pur- 
pose, they  serve  to  define  and  justify  the  place  of  God  in  the 
universe.  Similarly,  in  each  work  there  is  much  glorification 
of  nature,  and  a  pantheistic  treatment  of  it  is  always  consciously 
in  the  foreground. 

As  is  usual  with  Shaftesbury  and  in  the  more  poetical  and 
idealistic  conceptions  of  Schiller,  the  unity  and  harmony  of 
the  universe  are  postulated  as  basic  principles.  "It  is  no  hard 
thing,"  says  Shaftesbury,68  "to  be  persuaded  that  nature  is 
a  single  thing."  This  is  evidenced  by  the  harmony  of  infinite 
parts  which  can  mean  a  more  embracive  harmony  of  the  whole. 
This  grand  conception  of  the  all  pervading  harmony  cannot 
but  show  the  smallness  of  man.  Schiller  contrasts  man  with 
the  hugeness  of  the  universe^  and  Shaftesbury  calls  attention 
to  the  prolonged,  helpless  infancy  of  man  in  comparison  with 
the  lower  animals.  From  this  it  is  only  a  step,  however,  to  the 
glorification  of  the  mind  of  man  which  is  able  to  compass  the 
universe  with  its  understanding.  Both  Shaftesbury  and  Schiller 
have  precisely  the  same  method  of  reasoning  from  the  fact  that 
man,  as  he  proceeds  in  his  ability  to  understand  the  universe, 
comes  more  and  more  to  assume  the  position  of  the  creator, 
by  approaching  the  greatness  of  his  thoughts  and  views.69  The 
mind,  then,  which  is  able  to  discern  the  harmony  of  the  universe 
partakes  of  a  supererogation  of  God,  which  is  given  in  lieu 
of  false  and  narrower  conceptions  in  religion.70    And  this  doc- 

68  Characteristics :   II:  347. 

69  Shaftesbury  in  another  place  contends  that  ill-humor  alone  can  cause 
disagreeable  thoughts  about  God  or  about  the  universe.  Characteristics: 
I:  23. 

70  Compare  Schiller's  poem  "Die  Kuenstler." 

Doch  hoeher  stets,  zu  immer  hoehern  Hoehen 
Schwang  sich  der  schaffende  Genie. 

Schon  sieht  man  Schoepfungen  aus  Schoepfungen  erstehen, 
Aus  Harmonien,  Harmonie. 


Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  31 

trine  is,  somewhat  illogically,  subsequently  merged  into  a  pan- 
theistic creed,  since  if  the  spirit  of  harmony  is  omnipresent  in 
nature,  it  is  taken  to  argue  on  all  present  God.71 

Conclusion  and  Summary  of  Results 

The  most  outstanding  conclusion  to  be  derived  from  a  general 
survey  of  the  parallel  themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  is 
that  their  similarities  lie  more  on  the  emotional  than  on  the 
intellectual  side.  There  are,  for  instance,  several  themes  which 
are  broadly  comparable  as  general  principles,  or  as  doctrines, 
but  in  which  the  intellectual  support  is  entirely  different.  In 
several  of  his  contentions  Schiller  has  a  subject  quite  in  the 
fashion  of  Shaftesbury,  or  of  Plato,  but  which  he  dignifies  by 
having  recourse  to  an  elaborate  psychology,  partly  of  his  own 
invention  and  partly  modeled  upon  the  accepted  views  of  his 
recognized  contemporaries.  It  is  generally  true,  therefore,  that 
Shaftesbury's  beliefs  are  in  the  nature  of  conclusions,  while 
Schiller's,  on  the  other  hand,  take  the  form  of  conclusions  in- 
ferred from  cautious  premises.  Furthermore,  in  Schiller  there 
is  at  times  a  curious  line  of  demarcation  between  what  he  liked 
to  believe  and  what  he  was  compelled  to  accept  as  true  because 
of  his  respect  for  wholly  intellectual  judgments.  The  reason 
why  Shaftesbury,  the  realist  and  the  physicist  of  ethics,  and 
Schiller,  the  idealist  and  the  metaphysicist  of  ethics,  come  into 
such  close  touch  in  the  chief  of  their  cardinal  doctrines  is,  then, 
actually  not  so  hard  to  explain,  for  Shaftesbury  was  content 
to  develop  only  those  themes  which  were  agreeable  to  his  ideas 
of  harmony  and  inherent  goodness  and  Schiller,  when  too  con- 
scious of  the  jarring  inconsequencies  of  life,  retreated  from 
them  into  his  realm  of  idealism,  there  to  find  the  encouragement 
which  his  environment  could  not  offer.  There  is  also,  in  effect, 
a  good  deal  in  Shaftesbury  which  seems  nothing  more  than  a 
"retreat  from  reality,"  although  this  is  not  attained  by  postu- 
lating ideal  circumstances,  but  merely  by  shutting  out  part  of 
the  facts  of  experience. 

The  tendency  to  seek  harmony  in  all  the  varied  manifesta- 
tions of  life  and  art  is  unquestionably  the  point  at  which  there 


71  Shaftesbury  conceives  the  "antient  cause"  to  be  in  every  place  and 
void. 


32  Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury 

is  the  largest  amount  of  convergence  in  both  authors.  From 
the  doctrine  of  the  harmony  of  the  universe  to  that  of  the  har- 
monized individual  is  but  a  step  and  both  Shaftesbury  and 
Schiller  pass  readily  from  one  to  the  other. 

That  moral  beauty,  meaning  the  perfection  of  the  individual 
and  the  completest  expression  of  humanity  in  him,  stands 
highest  in  the  scale  of  aesthetics  is  similarly  held  by  both,  and 
this  principle  is  in  the  closest  accord  with  the  doctrine  of  har- 
mony, since  absolute  harmony  is  perfection  and,  on  the  aesthetic 
side,  active,  creative  beauty  is  put  highest. 

Perception  of  the  moral,  then,  because  the  character  under 
ideal  conditions  is  thoroughly  at  one  with  itself,  takes  place 
without  debate.  It  is  immediate  because  it  is  unhampered. 
Schiller,  it  will  be  remembered  from  the  Kallias  Letters,  gets 
at  this  question  from  his  definition  of  beauty,  "a  freedom  in 
the  appearance,"  that  is,  an  act  is  beautiful  only  when  it  seems 
to  determine  itself;  it  is  hardly  necessary,  however,  for  Shaftes- 
bury to  have  recourse  to  such  a  roundabout  approach  since 
as  he  naively  conceives  it:  merely  seeing  the  beautiful  and  the 
good  is  sufficient  reason  for  embracing  them. 

Intellectual  achievement,  likewise,  is  accorded  a  place  of 
honor  by  both  writers.  Shaftesbury  requires,  to  be  sure,  a 
very  modest  kind  of  intellectual  prowess,  and  he  prescribes 
very  definite  limits  within  which  it  may  be  used  and  outside 
of  which  it  becomes  mere  pedantry.  Schiller  praises  it,  though 
with  less  reservation,  and,  judging  from  his  formal  statements, 
he  is  willing  to  play  the  obscurantist  in  its  favor. 

Moral  education  through  art  bulks  large  in  the  concern  of 
both  writers.  Shaftesbury,  of  course,  knows  nothing  of  Schiller's 
elaborate  excursions  into  metaphysics  in  search  for  reasons 
for  the  close  relations  between  art  and  morality;  but  both 
Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  stand  upon  a  similar  platform  in 
maintaining  that  the  artist  is  helped  by  his  art  and  a  proper 
understanding  of  its  principles,  and  both  desire  a  further  appli- 
cation of  art  training  towards  morality. 

Conventional  religion  both  authors  dislike.  It  is  Shaftes- 
bury, however,  who  dilates  upon  its  evils  more  completely, 
while  Schiller  thinks  true  religion  misunderstood  and  irrevelant 
aspects  emphasized. 


Parallel  Themes  in  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  33 

Similarly,  all  confusion,  irregularity,  disharmony,  force,  and 
coercion  are  utterly  distasteful  to  their  thought,  and  they  take 
every  means  to  avoid  them. 

The  chief  divergence  in  the  teachings  of  Schiller  and  Shaftes- 
bury centers  around  the  doctrine  of  utility.  Shaftesbury  stands 
frankly  for  virtue  because  it  is  the  good  of  the  individual  and 
of  the  race,  while  Schiller  specifies  that  it  is  the  higher  spiritual 
good  which  virtue  achieves.  This  division  of  doctrine  may 
serve  further  to  explain  why  the  "virtuoso"  and  the  "beautiful 
soul,"  considered  merely  in  their  outward  manifestations,  have 
so  little  in  common;  in  fact,  it  is  largely  by  inference  that  the 
one  appears  in  a  just  sense  to  be  the  analogue  of  the  other.  In 
fine,  here  as  elsewhere,  it  is  in  the  spirit  rather  than  in  the  letter 
that  Schiller  and  Shaftesbury  stand  in  substantial  agreement. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


OCT  »* 

IgffO  ^° 
160 

5181771 

DEC  Tl967 
RECEIVED 

NOV  18*67  •»  AM 

LOAN  DEPT. 

LD  21-100m-12,'46(A2012si6)4120 


Makers 

Syracuse,  N  Y. 

PAT.  J»».  2'.  1908 


420204 


C^e^L^LXJe^/v 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


